Build a mosque...

[moreluck]

He specified near the site of the Oklahoma city bombing.....I didn't think I needed to repeat that info.

 

[Jones]

What about those crazy christian extremists who bomb clinics and kill doctors? Clearly all christians need to be kept away from hospitals and pregnant women. Remember, when they win a battle they build a church!

 

[av8torntn]

They have lots of churches in OK.

There are also lots of mosques in NY.

 

[av8torntn]

Remember, when they win a battle they build a church!

There have been times when local governments have not allowed a church to be built.

This is similar.

Looks like in Kalifornia one cannot build a church in an open area.


Look what the government was doing to Christian churches in Chicago.

 

[Jones]

There have been times when local governments have not allowed a church to be built.

This is similar.

This one seems more like a bureaucratic issue issue that will soon be resolved, likely in the church's favor.

Looks like in Kalifornia one cannot build a church in an open area.

This is a zoning dispute. Yes they are trying to block the church from expanding, but from what I can tell they aren't singling them out because of their religious beliefs.

Look what the government was doing to Christian churches in Chicago.

In this instance it looks like the court ruled in the church's favor.

To me the New York case is a pretty clear cut first amendment issue, picking and choosing who is allowed to build what and where based solely on the religious beliefs of the people involved. If it winds up in court it seems like a pretty indefensible position.

 

[moreluck]

I heard a couple interviews from union contractors who said they would refuse to work on a mosque near ground zero. So, even if they owned all the land and had all the money to go ahead, they may not find people to work on it. The head Imam said he was a bridge-builder, but he didn't say anything about being a building builder.

 

[fxdwg]

Putting a Mosque at or near Ground Zero is just asking for trouble.

The Patrons will be at risk.

Don't the jerks know that? Or are they playing chicken???

 

[av8torntn]

Ashame that the very people that scream the loudest about public welfare stand the most silent when it comes to the use of force and violence under the guise of taxation for what amounts to corp. welfare. Oh that's right, they need all these competing and redundant systems so we can be protected from the latest boogie man.


:

From my point of view some of those are very comforting to have on your side if you are the one(of one of your family members) sent to fight your boogie man.

 

[av8torntn]

I know you guys are gonna flame my ass for this, but I call them like I see them.

If the barbaric actions of "Muslim" extremists make it inappropriate to place a mosque near the World Trade Center, then it would follow that the barbaric actions of a "Christian" extremist (Timothy McVeigh) would also make it inappropriate to place a Christian church near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing.

You cant have it both ways, no matter how emotionally convenient it might be.

I don't remember McVeigh doing what he did in the name of Christianity. I am almost positive it was done as an anti Government thing.

 

[av8torntn]

To me the New York case is a pretty clear cut first amendment issue, picking and choosing who is allowed to build what and where based solely on the religious beliefs of the people involved. If it winds up in court it seems like a pretty indefensible position.

To me this is not a first amendment issue even in a small way. I don't think anyone has said that they want Islam to be the established religion or a prohibited religion of the US. It's hard to get around the fact that the Government already tells citizens what they can or cannot build for a variety of reasons. The Mormons were brought up earlier and that is a great example of a Christian religion that has been blocked many times over the years by the government from building their churches. They were kidnapped, tortured and even hung for their religion.

One of the articles I linked to earlier(I think) was about a local government not allowing a Christian church to tear down a building to have more parking space for their congregation. I have not really followed the mosque story but I remember seeing a meeting where the citizens were asking their government to not allow this group to tear down a building for their mosque. Why give a group special treatment just because they are Muslim?

I personally think if you own property you should be allowed to do what you want with it. However, in this Country this is not the way things are. I own several rental properties and if someone wanted to rent a place from me and she was pregnant and I turned her away I would be in violation of the law. If I wanted to knock out a wall and expand a room or even close in a garage without permission from the government I would be in violation of the law. Heck for that matter I would not even be allowed to burn it down to avoid the property taxes. I am sure you have all types of justifications for the government not allowing people to do what they want with their property but the truth is that we have lost our rights to do what we want with our properties some time ago.

My view is I'd rather not have to live under all this government oppression but if we must why can we not use it to our advantage? I say let them build their mosque there. The government should throw up every regulatory barrier they can and drive the costs up to the billions and make it take twenty years to build much in the same way they do with power plants. I would then ask the government to come in and use eminent domain to confiscate the property for pennies on the dollar(much like has been done many times before) and build a monument to the victims of Muslim violence in this Country.

 

[fxdwg]

The First Amendment does not apply on BC.... All we have is Freedom of advertisements and Tony's will.

 

[over9five]

The First Amendment does not apply on BC.... All we have is Freedom of advertisements and Tony's will.

Yup, but we do give you the freedom to go on over to Teamsternet if you don't like the rules here.

 

[Jones]

To me this is not a first amendment issue even in a small way. I don't think anyone has said that they want Islam to be the established religion or a prohibited religion of the US. It's hard to get around the fact that the Government already tells citizens what they can or cannot build for a variety of reasons. The Mormons were brought up earlier and that is a great example of a Christian religion that has been blocked many times over the years by the government from building their churches. They were kidnapped, tortured and even hung for their religion.

One of the articles I linked to earlier(I think) was about a local government not allowing a Christian church to tear down a building to have more parking space for their congregation. I have not really followed the mosque story but I remember seeing a meeting where the citizens were asking their government to not allow this group to tear down a building for their mosque. Why give a group special treatment just because they are Muslim?

I personally think if you own property you should be allowed to do what you want with it. However, in this Country this is not the way things are. I own several rental properties and if someone wanted to rent a place from me and she was pregnant and I turned her away I would be in violation of the law. If I wanted to knock out a wall and expand a room or even close in a garage without permission from the government I would be in violation of the law. Heck for that matter I would not even be allowed to burn it down to avoid the property taxes. I am sure you have all types of justifications for the government not allowing people to do what they want with their property but the truth is that we have lost our rights to do what we want with our properties some time ago.

My view is I'd rather not have to live under all this government oppression but if we must why can we not use it to our advantage? I say let them build their mosque there. The government should throw up every regulatory barrier they can and drive the costs up to the billions and make it take twenty years to build much in the same way they do with power plants. I would then ask the government to come in and use eminent domain to confiscate the property for pennies on the dollar(much like has been done many times before) and build a monument to the victims of Muslim violence in this Country.

If the mosque is blocked because of the religion of the owners (and at this point it would be hard to characterize the opposition any other way), it's obviously a first amendment issue. Eugene Volokh sums it up pretty well:

But the legal issue is open and shut. The Free Exercise Clause means that the government may not discriminate against an entity because of its religious denomination. The Free Speech Clause means that the government generally may not discriminate an entity because of what it says or teaches (and that applies to discrimination against religious speakers as much as to discrimination against secular speakers). There are some exceptions to the latter principle, but none apply here.
This means that the government may not refuse a zoning permit to a group because it’s Muslim, or Tea Party, or Socialist, or anti-gay-rights. It may not try to use landmarking law to bar the group from reconstructing a building, if the law is being used because of the group’s message. (A religious organization may in some situations and in some jurisdictions get an exemption even when a neutral, generally applicable law is being applied to it for religion– and speech-independent reasons; but here the landmarking law was clearly being applied precisely because the mosque was a mosque, so the Free Exercise Clause’s prohibition on religious discrimination comes into play.)
Nor can the New York Public Service Commission force Consolidated Edison to refuse to sell its property to a religious or ideological because of the entity’s religious or ideological affiliation. A private property owner might have the right to discriminate based on religion or ideology in its choice of buyers. (I don’t know New York law on the subject, and I don’t know whether federal housing law would apply to discrimination based on religion in sale of non-residential property.) But the government may not force or coercively pressure private property owners to so discriminate.

 

[moreluck]

I used to go over to teamster.net once in awhile hunting for jokes......slim pickins there!!

 

[fxdwg]

Yup, but we do give you the freedom to go on over to Teamsternet if you don't like the rules here.

Why does the "If you don't like it, go somewhere else" statement always pop up on BC whether it is related to working conditions at UPS or Moderators editing or pulling Posts?
It seems like the easiest path to me. Not well thought out or imaginative, just easy. Perthaps that is the problem with your company.

 

[Jones]

Why does the "If you don't like it, go somewhere else" statement always pop up on BC whether it is related to working conditions at UPS or Moderators editing or pulling Posts?
It seems like the easiest path to me. Not well thought out or imaginative, just easy. Perthaps that is the problem with your company.

Kinda like this:

The First Amendment does not apply on BC.... All we have is Freedom of advertisements and Tony's will.

Try making some original (and valid) complaints, and I'm sure you'll get an original response.

 

[fxdwg]

Kinda like this:

Try making some original (and valid) complaints, and I'm sure you'll get an original response.

Who are you to say they're not valid? I'm just tired of people pulling and editing posts that they don't necessarily agree with.

 

[pickup]

The First Amendment does not apply on BC.... All we have is Freedom of advertisements and Tony's will.

And an iron will he does rule with . Long live Tony and his queen Cheryl.

 

[av8torntn]

If the mosque is blocked because of the religion of the owners (and at this point it would be hard to characterize the opposition any other way), it's obviously a first amendment issue.

Courts have backed local governments right to say no church can be built at a specific site in the past.

The Free Speech Clause means that the government generally may not discriminate an entity because of what it says or teaches (and that applies to discrimination against religious speakers as much as to discrimination against secular speakers). There are some exceptions to the latter principle, but none apply here.

Nobody has said this guy cannot speak.

 

[Jones]

Courts have backed local governments right to say no church can be built at a specific site in the past.




Nobody has said this guy cannot speak.

There's a difference between saying that no church can be built at a site, and saying that no muslim church can be built at a site.
I'm not denying that similar things have happened in the past, I'm saying that discriminating on the basis of religion is a first amendment issue.